Tel Aviv

Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University

ISSN: 0334-4355 (Print) 2040-4786 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ytav20

Notes on Three South Canaanite Sites in the el-

Amarna Correspondence

Ido Koch

To cite this article: Ido Koch (2016) Notes on Three South Canaanite Sites in the el-Amarna
Correspondence, Tel Aviv, 43:1, 91-98, DOI: 10.1080/03344355.2016.1161369

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03344355.2016.1161369

Published online: 01 Jun 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 28

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ytav20

Download by: [Athabasca University] Date: 20 June 2016, At: 15:40

 TEL AVIV Vol. 43, 2016, 91–98

Notes on Three South Canaanite Sites

in the el-Amarna Correspondence
Ido Koch
University of Zurich

The author addresses three geographical issues that emerge from the
Downloaded by [Athabasca University] at 15:40 20 June 2016

el-Amarna correspondence, all related to south Canaan: the identification of

Yurza and Bit-NIN.URTA and the location of a coastal polity between Ashkelon
and Jaffa. He suggests placing Yurza at Tel Haror, Bit-NIN.URTA at Deir
el->Azar (biblical Kiriath-jearim) and identifying Yavne-Yam (Mu azu) as a
center of a south Canaanite city-state.

Keywords Yurza, Gerar, Tel Haror, Bit-NIN.URTA, Kiriath-Jearim, Mu azu,

Yavne-Yam

Yurza
The southernmost polity in Canaan under the hegemony of the late Eighteenth Egyptian Dynasty
was Yurza, which is mentioned in three Amarna letters sent by its rulers (EA 314–316) (Na’aman
1975: 138–140; 1997: 607; Goren, Finkelstein and Na’aman 2004: 299). Yurza also appears in
the inscriptions of Thutmosis III (15th century BCE) and Shoshenq I (10th century BCE) (Aḥituv
1984: 202–203). Mazar (Maisler 1952: 51) suggested that Yurza is the predecessor of Byzantine
Ορδα (Orda), which, according to the Madaba Map and other Byzantine sources, was located
in Saltus Gerariticus.1 Na’aman (1979: 72–74; 1980: 106), elaborating on the identification of
this site, proposed that both toponyms are connected to Arza, which is referred to in the annals
of Esarhaddon and in a Babylonian chronicle (the so-called Esarhaddon Chronicle) as a town
located near the Brook of Egypt (= Nahal Besor [Wadi Ghazza]); Esarhaddon conquered Yurza
during his second year as king (679 BCE) (Bagg 2007: 29–30).
Three sites have been suggested as the location of Late Bronze/Iron Age Yurza/Arza.
According to Mazar (Maisler 1952) and Na’aman (1979: 68–74), Yurza is to be identified
at Tell Jemmeh; recent publication of the excavations of Tell Jemmeh (Fig. 1), however,
show an absence of typical LB I pottery forms (Ben-Shlomo and Van Beek 2014: 80,

1
For more on Orda, see Tsafrir, Di Segni and Green 1994: 198. On Saltus Gerariticus, located
east of Nahal Besor, and its neighbour to the west, Saltus Constantinianus, see Di Segni 2004.

© The Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 2016 DOI 10.1080/03344355.2016.1161369

 92 ido koch

Local polity
Yavne-Yam/Muḫḫazu
Possible local polity N.
Ay
Egyptian centre yalo
n
Settlement Gezer
Tel Mor
Aijalon
N. S Deir el->Azar/
orek
Bit NIN.URTA
Tel Miqne Tel Batash
Moza
Tel Ashdod Jerusalem
Tel Beth-Shemesh
N. Manaḥat
La
ch
ish Gath
Tel Azekah
Ashkelon

Tel Zayit
al-Qilla/Qiltu

N. Sh
iqma Lachish
Tel Ḥesi
Hebron
Downloaded by [Athabasca University] at 15:40 20 June 2016

Gaza
Tel Eton

Tell el-Ajjul/Sharḥan Tell Beit-Mirsim

N.
Ha
Be

Tel Seraʽ/Gerar (?) Tel Ḥalif

so
r

Tell Jemmeh Tel Haror/Yurza

0 10km

Figure 1 Southern Canaan in the Late Bronze Age.

1054). Tell el-Hesi was also a candidate for the site (Rainey 1993: 185*), but petrographic
analysis of the tablets from Yurza have attested to the tablet’s provenance in the Besor Basin
(Goren, Finkelstein and Na’aman 2004: 299–301). Finkelstein (1996: 232; cf. Na’aman
1997: 607) suggested a third possibility—locating Yurza at Tel Haror—though he notes
the small size of the Late Bronze settlement and its traditional identification with Gerar.
It is this final possibility that I explore below.
Tel Haror2 is comprised of a lower mound (ca. 15 ha in size) and an upper mound
(1.5 ha) (Oren 1993a: 580). Only preliminary results of the excavations directed by Oren
have been published (1992; 1993a; 1995); they indicate the abandonment of the Middle
Bronze settlement and its reoccupation during the LB I, followed by an LB II occupation
that was exposed in most of the excavated areas on the lower mound.3 As such, the Late

2
Arabic Tell Abu Hureirah , named after one of the prominent companions of Mohamad (Conder
and Kitchener 1970 [1883]: 399).
3
The preliminary reports indicate the following general outline: the Late Bronze remains on the
lower mound include a large LB I building (Phase L-3) near the southeastern slope that was
succeeded by another large building dating to the LB IIA (Phase L-2). Architectural remains
dated to the LB IIB were unearthed near the western slope: pits and installations in Area K
(Phase K-3) above the MB II remains, and destruction debris in the lowest excavated level in
Area B (Phase B-7). The excavation of the upper mound (Areas E and G) did not reach below
the Iron I levels.
 Three South Canaanite Sites in the el-Amarna Correspondence 93

Bronze settlement at Tel Haror was larger than that of its eastern neighbour, Tel Sera>
(1.5 ha), where a similar stratigraphic sequence was recorded (Oren 1993b: 1330; Martin
2011: 221–228). Occupation phases dating to the Iron I–IIB at Tel Haror were recorded
only on the upper mound, indicating a small settlement that was heavily fortified during
the Iron IIB, before eventually being destroyed in a fierce conflagration (cf. also Oren
1992: 98–100). There was minimal affiliation between the Iron IIB settlement at Tel Haror
and the Neo-Assyrian empire; this was in marked contrast to its neighbours, Tel Sera>
and Tell Jemmeh (on the latter, see Na’aman 2001: 263–265; 2004; Oren 1993b: 1333;
Ben-Shlomo and Van Beek 2014: 1057–1064). These features thus provide an overlooked
correlation with the historical attestations of Yurza/Arza, which appears as a local polity
during the LB IIA and the Iron IIB, before its destruction in the early 7th century BCE.
As for Byzantine Orda, Alt (1931: 204–215) noted that the Madaba Map places it
between Σεανα (Kh. Siḥan) and Φωτις (Kh. Futeis), presumably on the road from Gaza
Downloaded by [Athabasca University] at 15:40 20 June 2016

to Beer-sheba, along Wadi esh-Sheria>. He therefore suggested identifying Orda with

Kh. >Irq, a large (ca. 50 ha) site situated about 4 km southwest of Tel Haror (Alt 1932:
126–129). Archaeological exploration at Kh. >Irq have revealed remains dated from the
Persian period to the medieval era, with abundant material from the Byzantine period
(cf. Gat 2014: Site No. 23). Consequently, it is probable that Yurza/Arza was the name
of the settlement located at Tel Haror until its destruction in the late Iron Age, when its
inhabitants relocated to the nearby plain.
Placing Yurza at Tel Haror, requires reconsideration of the location of Gerar. The
association of Gerar with Tel Haror has been based on the assumption that the Patriarch
narratives reflect the reality of the MB II, a period during which the site held a place of
prominence (Aharoni 1956: 30–31; cf. Oren 1993a: 580). Yet these narratives are now
being dated to the latter part of the first millennium BCE (e.g., Finkelstein and Römer
2014). Accordingly, the location of Gerar can perhaps once again be placed at Tel Sera>
(Alt 1935; Avi-Yonah 1976: 61; Zadok 2009: 660, n. 2). Excavations at the site have
unearthed a strong Neo-Assyrian imperial centre and a wealthy settlement dated to the
Persian period (Oren 1993b). This hints at the rise of Gerar as a regional centre under
imperial patronage—perhaps following the destruction of Tel Haror/Arza—comparable
to the development of a 7th century BCE imperial estate around Tel Beror (Zadok 2009:
663–664). By the Hellenistic and Roman periods, the settlement at Tel Sera> declined and
the regional centre seems to have once again relocated westward, this time to Kh. >Irq.

Bit-NIN.URTA
In EA 290, Abdi-Ḫeba of Jerusalem blames the rulers of Gezer and Gath for assembling
their troops (together with the men of Qiltu), causing the fall of the town of Rubute
(lines 5–14) and initiating the revolt of a town named Bit-NIN.URTA (uruÉ dNIN.URTA),
specifically referred to as belonging to Jerusalem (lines 14–21)4:
[Sa]y [t]o the king, my lord: Message of [Abdi]-Ḫeba, your servant….Here is the
deed against the land that Milkilu and Suardatu did…they ordered? troops from

4
For the sequence of events in the so-called Qiltu affair, see Na’aman 2011: 289–292.
 94 ido koch

Gazru, troops from Gimtu, and troops from Qiltu. They seized Rubutu….And now,
besides this, a town belonging to Jerusalem,5 Bit-dNIN.URTA by name, a city of
the king, has gone over to the side of the men of Qiltu (Trans. Moran 1992: 334).
The identification of Bit-NIN.URTA has attracted a great deal of scholarly attention,
much of which involves attempts to understand the appearance of the name of a
Mesopotamian god in a West Semitic toponym. While the use of the Mesopotamian god
Ninurta’s name was not common in the Levant, it did occur, as can be seen in an identical
toponym (É dNIN.URTA) that appears in another el-Amarna tablet (EA 74: 31) and in a
personal name (EA 84: 39 – mÌR-NIN.URTA). Attempts to identify Ninurta with a local
god have resulted in a massive debate. Correlation between Ninurta and Horon, Anat or Ṣur
have been suggested,6 but consensus has not been reached (Finkelstein 2014: 268–269). It
appears that the West Semitic parallel would likely feature some characteristics exhibited
by Ninurta (Kallai and Tadmor 1969: 138, 140).
Downloaded by [Athabasca University] at 15:40 20 June 2016

Ninurta falls under the category of youthful gods who fight the forces of chaos and
eventually ascend the throne of their father (Annus 2002, esp. 171–186). His father,
Enlil, is the lord of the gods. Enlil resides in Nippur and has bestowed kingship upon
man (Schwemer 2007: 126 with literature). Cross-cultural interaction between southern
Mesopotamia and north Syrian cities in the third and early second millennia BCE led to
equating Enlil with Dagan, the lord of the middle Euphrates, attested in texts that transfer
mythical narratives and attributes from one deity to another (Archi 2004: 322–327). In
a lengthy process, equating deities led to the transfer of various motifs, including the
father/son relation of Enlil and Ninurta, to the Middle Euphrates. It is probably for this
reason that 14th–13th century BCE scribes in Emar used Ninurta’s Sumerogram when
describing the city’s local patron, who ruled alongside his father, Dagan (Fleming 1994;
2000: 93–94 with literature; Archi 2004: 327–328). Similarly, the Ba>lu cycle from Ugarit
focuses on the figure Ba>lu, who succeeds his father, Ilu, after defeating his adversaries.
It is notable for the purpose of this study that in two instances, Ba>lu is referred to as the
‘son of Dagan’, likely reflecting earlier connections with the religious traditions of the
Middle Euphrates (Schwemer 2008: 11–14).
In light of this, some well-educated Levantine scribes might have used the Sumerogram
d
NIN.URTA to refer in cuneiform text to an avatar of Ba>lu that emphasized similar father/
son and monster slayer motifs. In Schwemer’s words (2007: 123): ‘The selection of a specific
Sumerogram (or Akkadogram) to represent a god’s name was normally determined by
whatever deity was felt to be typologically related in the Sumerian pantheon to that particular
god. The conventional Sumerographic writing of a divine name in cuneiform thus reflects
a typological classification of the deity in question from the perspective of the respective
scribal tradition’. The background for this practice might have been the Mesopotamian scribal

5
Alternatively “a town of the land of Jerusalem” (Rainey 2015: 1124).
6
Albright (1936: 7) and Kallai and Tadmor (1969) suggested locating Bit-NIN.URTA at Beth-
Horon; Na'aman (1990: 252–254) proposed an unidentified Beth-Anat; and Singer (1993: 136)
suggested Beth-Zur.
 Three South Canaanite Sites in the el-Amarna Correspondence 95

curriculum that included mythic texts, god-lists and other written sources that students of
cuneiform writing repeatedly copied (Smith 2010: 45–48 with literature).
With this in mind, it can be posited that the toponym Bit-NIN.URTA might have
represented a Ba>lu theophoric element as well. Biblical Kiriath-jearim, also known as Kiriath
Baal (Josh 15:60; 18:14) and Ba>alah/LXX Baal (Josh 15:9–10; 1 Chr 13:6)7, fits the necessary
criteria. It is identified with the site of Deir el->Azar overlooking modern Abu Gosh, which
is located in proximity to both Jerusalem and Gezer. Limited excavations at the site yielded
material dated to both the LB II and Iron II (Cooke 1923–1924, esp. 115).8 The association
of this site with Ba>al allows for a cautious reconstruction of a Ba>lu toponym during the
Late Bronze Age. Based on this, it may be suggested that the Late Bronze settlement at Deir
el->Azar, whose location on a high hill between the Sorek/Ayalon watersheds would have
allowed ample opportunity for creating disagreement between Gezer and Jerusalem, and
this site could have been called Bit-Ba>li in the el-Amarna period.9 Taking into account the
handful of Late Bronze sites known in the region of Jerusalem, which stand for the towns
Downloaded by [Athabasca University] at 15:40 20 June 2016

‘of Land of Jerusalem’ (EA 287:63; Moran 1992: 328; see Fig. 1), this suggestion seems
even more well-founded.10

Ashkelon’s northern neighbour

Written sources indicate the existance of four centers along the southern Coastal Plain
during the late Eighteenth Dynasty. Two of these—Gaza and Jaffa—were Egyptian centres
(Morris 2005: 54–56, 137–138, 253; Burke and Lords 2010). The third polity was Ashkelon
(see letters sent by its rulers: EA 301–305, 321–326, 370; Goren, Finkelstein and Na’aman
2004: 294–299). Na’aman (1975: 68, 70, 78) initially suggested that a fourth polity,
located north of Ashkelon, was Muḫḫazu, a town that is mentioned in a single tablet from

7
For discussion of scholarly opinions regarding the possible reading of MT mb>ly yhwdh in 2
Sam 6:2 as mb>l yhwdh (“from [the town of] Ba>al [of] Judah”), see Rezetko 2007: 91–93.
8
A small amount of Late Bronze pottery was also collected in a salvage excavation in 1995. I
thank Oron Schwartz, who is working on the publication of the excavations conducted at Deir
el->Azar for sharing his preliminary conclusions with me.
9
The second appearance of Bit-NIN.URTA in the el-Amarna correspondence is better understood
with this interpretation in mind. Rib-Hadda of Byblos describes the hostile deeds of Abdi-Aširta
(EA 74: 30–54), including his call to his allies to “assemble in the temple of NIN.URTA” (trans.
Moran 1992: 443). The identity of the deity, in front of which Abdi-Aširta and his allies “placed
an oath”, has long intrigued scholars (e.g., ibid.: 144 n. 10). The identification with Ba>lu
suggested above perfectly fits the prominence of his cult in the region of Mount Lebanon—the
heartland of the Kingdom of Amurru (Goren, Finkelstein and Na’aman 2003).
10
Besides Der el->Azar there were Moza/Qaluniya (Magen and Finkelstein 1993: Site No. 291;
Kisilevitz et al. 2014) and Manaḥat (with a scarab bearing the name of Amenhotep III; Edelstein,
Milevski and Aurnat 1998). See also the few Late Bronze sherds reported from Beit Ur et-Taḥta
(Magen and Finkelstein 1993: Site No. 22), which seems to be closer to the Valley of Ayalon and
its settlements than to the highland. Late Bronze remains at Beitin, north of Jerusalem, and Kh.
Tubeiqa to the south date mostly to the 13th century BCE (Bunimovitz 1989: 27; Finkelstein
and Singer-Avitz 2009: 37, 43).
 96 ido koch

el-Amarna (EA 298) and in other Eighteenth Dynasty sources (Aḥituv 1984: 143–145), and
which has been identified as Minêt Rubin/Yavne-Yam (Steiglitz 1974). Katzenstein (1985)
suggested that Muḫḫazu was ruled by Yaḫtiru, who sent EA 296, a letter that emphasized
his loyalty to the Egyptian court by describing both his past service in the imperial system
and his current task of guarding the gates of Gaza and Jaffa. Na’aman later (1997: 615)
suggested another site for a local polity—Tel Ashdod—the rulers of which, he proposed,
wrote EA 294 and 296. 11The existence of a polity between Ashkelon and Jaffa has since
been confirmed through the petrographic analysis of these two tablets, attesting to their
origin on the Coastal Plain between modern Ashdod and Caesarea (Goren, Finkelstein and
Na’aman 2004: 292–294).
Although in recent years other scholars have accepted the identification of the second
polity as Tel Ashdod (e.g., Goren, Finkelstein and Na’aman 2004: 292–294; Finkelstein
2014: 267), certain doubts remain. Ashdod is not mentioned in Egyptian sources, and a
previous attempt to identify the town’s original name has been contested (Rainey 2003:
Downloaded by [Athabasca University] at 15:40 20 June 2016

163*–164*). Moreover, the exposed remains of LB I–IIA at Tel Ashdod are limited (Strata
XVIII–XVII in Area G) (Dothan and Porath 1993: 33–36 and Plan 5).12
Yavne-Yam, in contrast, makes a fine alternative. First, the site was inhabited from MB
II through LB IIA, with constant renovations of the monumental earthen rampart (Uziel
2008: 54–114). Second, LB IIA activity is traceable in the nearby cemetery of Ḥorvat
Ḥumra (Ori 1948; Keel 2010: Nos. 1–2, 8); LB IIB burials in the cemetery at Palmaḥim
(Yannai, Gophna, Lipschitz and Liphshitz 2013) may attest to continuous habitation at the
nearby site. Third, Nineteenth Dynasty inscriptions found next to Tel Shalaf may reflect
the importance of the region to the Egyptian empire (Goldwasser 1992). Fourth, some
nine Late Bronze sites have been recorded around lower Naḥal Sorek, attesting to an
established hinterland that would have provided the demographic support required by a
local polity.13 Fifth, Muḫḫazu is mentioned in Egyptian sources throughout the Eighteenth
and Nineteenth Dynasties (Aḥituv 1984: 143–145). I therefore posit that Muḫḫazu, located
at Yanve-Yam, was Ashkelon’s northern neighbour and that its rulers sent the Egyptian
court two letters that mention Jaffa (EA 294, 296).

11
EA 294 describes the deeds of a band of Apiru against men sent to work at Yapu (Jaffa).
12
The vicinity of Tel Ashdod was relatively thickly inhabited in the Late Bronze Age. This has
been shown by excavations and surveys of 16 sites between the lower Nahal Lachish and Nahal
Ivtaḥ (Berman and Barda 2005: 10* and map 2; Stark, Barda and Berman 2005: 10*and map
2). Accordingly, one could argue for the regional centrality of Tel Ashdod, especially in light
of the absence of rural sites around nearby Ashkelon (cf. Allen 2008). Yet, at least some of
the activity around Tel Ashdod was related to the Egyptian administration, especially Tel Mor
(Barako 2007; Martin 2011: 187–195) and Ashdod-Yam (S) (Nahshoni et al. 2013).
13
These include Yavne-Yam (Fischer 2008; Uziel 2008: 54–114), Tel Shalaf (Gorzalczany and
Taxel 2001), Tel Yavne (Fischer and Taxel 2007: 216) and possibly Tell es-Sultan (Dothan 1952:
110), along with five additional smaller surveyed sites (Busheri 1968; Barda and Zbenovich
2012: nos. 14, 15, 38; Marmelstein 2014). See also the LB II pottery found on a hill south of
modern Nes Ziyyona, apparently originated in a nearby tomb (Golan 2014).
 Three South Canaanite Sites in the el-Amarna Correspondence 97

In conclusion, there are two alternatives for the location of the second polity on the
coast between Gaza and Jaffa. According to one reconstruction, Tel Ashdod and Ashkelon
were two local polities while Muḫḫazu and its hinterland was under either direct imperial
control or under Gezer’s hegemony. In other words, in the wake of Ashkelon’s loss of regional
importance under Egyptian rule, a rival polity emerged at Tel Ashdod. This is difficult to
accept in view of the repeated presence of the former in Egyptian sources and the absence of
the latter. In concurrence with the second option suggested above, Muḫḫazu and Ashkelon
were the regional centres during both the Middle Bronze and LB I–IIA (see Fig. 1).

Acknowledgments
This paper derives from my Ph.D. dissertation, Southwestern Canaan during the Late
Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age: Empire, Elites and Colonial Encounters, written under
the supervision of Nadav Na’aman and Oded Lipschits of Tel Aviv University. I extend
to both of them my gratitude for commenting on earlier drafts of this work. Many thanks
Downloaded by [Athabasca University] at 15:40 20 June 2016

also go to Yoram Cohen, Israel Finkelstein and Ran Zadok, who commented on parts of
this work. The conclusions, however, are entirely my own.

References
Aharoni, Y. 1956. The Land of Gerar. IEJ 6: 26–32.
Aḥituv, S. 1984. Canaanite Toponyms in Ancient Egyptian Documents. Jerusalem.
Alt, A. 1931. Beiträge zur historischen Geographie und Topographie des Negeb, I. Das Bistum
Orda. Journal of Palestine Oriental Society 11: 204–221.
Alt, A. 1932. Beiträge zur historischen Geographie und Topographie des Negeb, II. Das Land
Gari. Journal of Palestine Oriental Society 12: 126–141.
Alt, A. 1935. Saruhen, Ziklag, Horma, Gerar. Journal of Palestine Oriental Society 15: 294–324.
Annus, A. 2002. The God Ninurta in the Mythology and Royal Ideology of Ancient Mesopotamia
(SAAS 14). Helsinki.
Archi, A. 2004. Translations of Gods: Kumarpi, Enlil, DAGAN/NISABA, Ḫalki. Orientalia 73: 319–336.
Avi-Yonah, M. 1976. Gazetteer of Roman Palestine (Qedem 5). Jerusalem.
Bagg, A.M. 2007. Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der neuassyrischen Zeit, 1. Die Levante
(Répertoire géographique des textes cuneiforms 7/1; Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des
Vorderen Orients. Reihe B, [Geisteswissenschaften] 7/7/1). Wiesbaden.
Ben-Shlomo, D. and Van Beek, G.W. 2014. The Smithsonian Institution Excavation at Tell Jemmeh,
Israel, 1970–1990 (Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology 50). Washington.
Burke, A.A. and Lords, K.V. 2010. Egyptians in Jaffa: A Portrait of Egyptian Presence in Jaffa
during the Late Bronze Age. NEA 73: 2–30.
Cooke, F.T. 1923–1924. The Site of Kirjath Jearim. AASOR 5: 105–120.
Dothan, M. and Porath, Y. 1993. Ashdod V: Excavation of Area G: The Fourth-Sixth Seasons of
Excavations 1968-1970. >Atiqot 23.
Finkelstein, I. 1996. The Territorial-Political System of Canaan in the Late Bronze Age. UF 28:
221–255.
Finkelstein, I. 2014. The Shephelah and Jerusalem’s Western Border in the Amarna Period. Egypt
and the Levant 24: 267–276.
Finkelstein, I. and Römer, T. 2014. Comments on the Historical Background of the Abraham
Narrative. Between “Realia” and “Exegetica”. HeBAI 3: 3–23.
Fleming, D.E. 1994. The Mountain Dagan: dKur and (d)Kur.Gal. NABU 16.
Fleming, D.E. 2000. Time at Emar: The Cultic Calendar and the Rituals from the Diviner’s Archive
(Mesopotamian Civilizations 11). Winona Lake.‫‏‬
Gat, A. 2014. Map of Patish—121 (Archaeological Survey of Israel). http://www.antiquities.org.
il/survey/new/
 98 ido koch

Golan, D. 2014. Nes-Ziyyona. Hadashot Arkheologiyot - Excavations and Surveys in Israel 126.
http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=8494&mag_id=121
Goldwasser, O. 1992. On the Date of Seth from Qubeibeh. IEJ 42: 47–51.
Goren, Y., Finkelstein, I. and Na’aman, N. 2004. Inscribed in Clay: Provenance Study of the Amarna
Letters and Other Near Eastern Texts (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology
of Tel Aviv University 23). Tel Aviv.
Kallai, Z. and Tadmor, H. 1969. Bit Ninurta = Beth Horon—On the History of the Kingdom of
Jerusalem in the Amarna Period. EI 9 (Albright Volume): 138–147 (Hebrew).
Katzenstein, H.J. 1985. Some Reflections Concerning el-Amarna 296. Proceedings of the World
Congress of Jewish Studies, Division A: The Period of the Bible. Jerusalem: 5–12.
Keel, O. 2010. Dahret el-Humreje. In: Keel, O. Corpus der Stempelsiegel-Amulette aus Palästina/
Israel 2 (OBO.SA 29). Fribourg and Göttingen: 336–339.
Maisler, B. 1952. Yurza-Tel Jemmeh. PEQ 1952: 48–51.
Martin, M.A.S. 2011. Egyptian-Type Pottery in the Late Bronze Age Southern Levant (ÖAWDG
69/CCEM 29). Vienna.
Moran, W.L. 1992. The Amarna Letters. Baltimore and London.
Morris, W.F. 2005. The Architecture of Imperialism: Military Bases and the Evolution of Foreign
Downloaded by [Athabasca University] at 15:40 20 June 2016

Policy in Egypt’s New Kingdom (PdÄ 22). Leiden.

Na’aman, N. 1975. The Political Disposition and Historical Development of Eretz-Israel According
to the Amarna Letters (Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv University). Tel Aviv (Hebrew with
English abstract).
Na’aman, N. 1979. The Brook of Egypt and the Assyrian Policy on the Border of Egypt. Tel Aviv
6: 68–90.
Na’aman, N. 1980. The Shihor of Egypt and Shur that Is before Egypt. Tel Aviv 7: 95–109.
Na’aman, N. 1997. The Network of Canaanite Late Bronze Kingdoms and the City of Ashdod.
UF 29: 599–625.
Na’aman, N. 2001. An Assyrian Residence at Ramat Raḥel. Tel Aviv 28: 260–280.
Na’aman, N. 2004. The Boundary System and Political Status of Gaza under the Assyrian Empire.
ZDPV 120: 55–72.
Oren, E.D. 1992. Ashlar Masonry in the Western Negev in the Iron Age. EI 23 (Biran Volume):
94–105 (Hebrew with English abstract on pp. 149*–150*).
Oren, E.D. 1993a. Haror, Tel. NEAEHL 2: 580–584.
Oren, E.D. 1993b. Sera>, Tel. NEAEHL 4: 1329–1335.
Oren, E.D. 1995. Tel Haror—1990. ESI 13: 113–116.
Ori, J. 1948. A Bronze-Age Cemetery at Dhahrat el Humriya. QDAP 13: 75–89.
Rainey, A.F. 1993. Sharḥân/Sharuhen—The Problem of Identification. EI 24 (Malamat Volume):
178*–187*.
Rainey, A.F. 2003. Some Amarna Collations. EI 27 (Tadmor Volume): 192*–202*.
Schwemer, D. 2007. The Storm-Gods of the Ancient Near East: Summary, Synthesis, Recent
Studies—Part 1. Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 7: 121–168.
Schwemer, D. 2008. The Storm-Gods of the Ancient Near East: Summary, Synthesis, Recent
Studies—Part 2. Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 8: 1–44.
Smith, M.S. 2010. God in Translation: Deities in Cross-Cultural Discourse in the Biblical World
(2nd edition). Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge, UK.
Stieglitz, R.R. 1974. Ugaritic Mḥḍ—the Harbor of Yabne-Yam? JAOS 94: 137–138.
Uziel, J. 2008. The Southern Coastal Plain of Canaan during the Middle Bronze Age (Ph.D.
dissertation, Bar-Ilan University). Ramat Gan.
Yannai, E., Gophna, R., Lipschitz, S., and Liphshitz, Y. 2013. A Late Bronze Age Cemetery on
the Coast of Palmaḥim. >Atiqot 74: 9–57
Zadok, R. 2009. Philistian Notes I. UF 41: 659–688.